Dems Need to Make Stronger Arguments Against Bush's Social Security Plan

This isn't my usual DU forum. I'm one of those Election Fraud hypothesizers. But I wanted to get a few words out about the campaign to save Social Security.

First of all, it is a fact that although riskier, the stock market does outperform bonds over the LONG TERM. However, there are now inflation adjusted bonds that can be used to guarantee a return higher than inflation no matter what the stock market or the rest of the bond market does. These can be used as investments for the Social Security Trust Fund or any other objective. The Federal Govt. can issue them; they do so already, but they can just issue more if they want to. For the Dems to claim that the stock market is a poor long term investment however, is not a fact based argument. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

I'll tell you what is fact-based though:

The stock market has done BETTER under Democratic Presidents! I don't have the figures handy, but it's well known in the investment community. So the Dems should at least be saying that if Shrub expects people to take their FICA money out of Govt. Bonds and put it in the stock market, they should also be electing Democrats! Compare the market's performance under Clinton, to Shrub's watch. They will use 9/11 as an excuse for poor performance, but while horrible, its effect on the economy was minimal.

On Shrub's watch, the stock market has gone nowhere for four years! Imagine how someone with their Social Security money invested in the market would have done. A bank account would have outperformed it, and that's just slightly better than putting your money in a mattress!

Democrats know how to stimulate the economy. Republicans only cut taxes. They don't even cut the ones that would be most likely to stimulate the economy, either. They just shift the tax burden from the rich toward the middle class and state and local governments.

This is the kind of talk we should be hearing from our party leaders. Not just that Shrub's plan is too expensive, that Social Sec. isn't broken, etc., etc. We should come out fighting!

If we are gong to beat these bastards, we have to be fact-based, but we also have to play their game and expose their incompetent plutocratic leadership. Nowadays, with the media always looking for sensationalism, it's not enough to just say we have a better idea. We have to say they are failing! "Come on, want to step outside?"

I think this is where our party is losing its way. We have NO balls, so to speak.

You can blast the media about this here:
<http://www.independentmediasource.com/>
Just change the subject line and content and send email.

And we should be doing the same with Verified Voting by the way, which is even more important.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x264034>

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x277831>

(Told you this wasn't my usual forum!)

You do not "invest" in Soc Sec, it is an insurance trust.

The cost of running Soc Sec (1%), could NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER be matched by the cost of investing in the stock market.

We must break this mindset completely.
Your argument is premised on the RW mentality of Soc Sec as an "investment".

I'm worn out. Reinforcements please?

carve out private accounts was very tiring.

When the media lies - and lies - and no one in the media -the "we have no bias we only want to make money media" - refuses to call Russert and Chris on their lies, it indeed does tire me.

I can only pop a blood vessel every so often.

I feel like we are fighting a constant sh*tstorm of willful misinformation, and it's wearing me out.

I also feel like if we stop and rest for even a minute, Bush will get the sleeping sheep to agree to destroying it while we are napping.

BTW - your stuff on Soc Sec has been GREAT. :toast:

:-)

WHATEVER IT IS, there are _investments_ backing it up that enable it to pay claims, just like insurance companies use. And you can buy mutual funds of stocks or bonds or treasury bills that have <1% admin. fees. They are mostly of the not-for-profit variety however and there aren't many of them in that category. They are the exception rather than the rule.

I understand that SS isn't there for anyone to make a killing in the stock market or any other market. It's a defined benefit pension plan and as you say, an insurance policy. Bush has said it will go broke due to its underlying INVESTMENTS and the demographics of its participants, right? We know this a lie.

I'm simply saying that even if those investments are changed to something that is potentially more profitable and more risky, it's his policies and those of his party that have, over the years, caused inferior performance of these investments.

If you think it's OK to just argue that we should keep things as they are, go ahead, but this may not convince everyone. I hope it does though. It's NOT broken, so we shouldn't be trying to fix it, or at least we shouldn't be reinventing the wheel.

Though the stock market does outperform bonds over the long term, the long term is measured over a period of 50-100 years. If, in one 40 year period, you had 20 great years followed by 20 years of depression, 'over the long term' wouldn't put food on the table.

The real point to argue is that Social Security is a means of stabilizing the business cycle, not a slave to it.